It is my understanding that in the U.S. foreign gear is legal for use by the visiting foreigner if the gear is approved, legal and maintained according to the governing body of the foreign country. As far as I know that includes that AAD.

So if your gear is legal in your country (Ireland) and you bring it to America to jump it yourself, you should be fine.

Hope this helps. Anyone with more or better info, please correct away.

Edit to change Israel to Ireland. Sorry for the mix-up. That'll teach me to squint and strain. Next time, I'll find the seeing glasses first!

AADs are not TSO items in the US. Neither Vigil nor Cypres have FAA approval. However, riggers have to pack in accordance with manufacturer instructions, so if the manufacturers won't state that Riggers can pack the M2 in rigs, then FAA riggers can't.

After the whole Arus debacle, US H/C manufacturers have developed a standardized testing system to give official approvals for AADs in their systems. Even Cypres had to go through these tests for approval even though they've been in use for 20 years.

As I understand it, the M2 failed this test at two very major US H/C manufacturers over a serious issue with their cutters and did not earn approval for use. The company now has to go re-engineer their cutters and try again. It may be a while before they are approved in the US for use in rigs by the manufacturers.

Thanks for the link. There has been plenty of talk in recent years about how AAD's might be slow to allow reserves to extract -- because of possible factors like small rigs, main canopies still in the container, and long closing loops.

The PIA doc shows that they have at least taken some such things into account when checking AAD & harness compatibility. They do test with, for example , 1 inch longer-than-suggested closing loops.

(It might be nice to vary the canopy size in the container too, to try overstuffing or understuffing the container. That, however, would affect bag extraction and not just the pilot chute launch being tested here.)

Mind you, I wonder what would happen if an AAD failed the tests -- in some such cases, all AAD's might fail with that rig. Many of the potential issues have to do with the design of the rig, and nothing to do with the design of the AAD. The exception is if the AAD cutter truly is poorer at making a clean cut.

(The PIA-suggested tests would entail building two different sized rigs and firing 36 cutters, so there is some time and money involved. That's for the suggested 'required' tests, while the 'optional' tests would double the number.)

More points to be considered: 1.Time in the market. 2.Any known issues. 3.Service cycles by the Mfg. (I think 4 years service cycle is a must) 4.Cost of parts. 5.After sell service 6.Does NOT have multi setting in 1 unit = 1 unit per each type of jump method. 7.Cutter sources & cutting method. 8.Approved by the H/C Mfg. to be set in his system according to PIA TS-112 spec.

More points to be considered: 1.Time in the market. 2.Any known issues. 3.Service cycles by the Mfg. (I think 4 years service cycle is a must) 4.Cost of parts. 5.After sell service 6.Does NOT have multi setting in 1 unit = 1 unit per each type of jump method.7.Cutter sources & cutting method. 8.Approved by the H/C Mfg. to be set in his system according to PIA TS-112 spec.

All IMO.

Be Safe & Buy Smart

Forgive my noob question, but why is this a concern? Is it simply due to the potential for human error, or is there another reason?

TS-120 was written as a suggested format for AAD manufacturers to use to report to the industry and their customers their product. It was written by Airtec staff at the time, with input and support from PIA committee members. I don't believe any other AAD manufacturer has used that particular format.

Look at the document numbers in your post. Two completely different documents with different purposes written a decade apart.

Ts 120 is suggested self reporting by an AAD manuf.

From TS 120:

Objective The PIA AAD Design & Testing Report Format is regarded as fulfilled when the manufacturer releases the following test report about his product. The test report will be published by the PIA in the "Para NewsBrief", and on the PIA Internet Web Site so that the public has access to it. With the following report procedure, every manufacturer has their own choice to define the extent and kind of requirements concerning their particular unit. The requirement regarding quality of each product results from the self-defined test requirements. Each manufacturer is free to decide which of the actual tests and quality control parameters they want to use in the published test report. The self-chosen quality requirements should be documented.

TS112 is a work in progress to guide H/c manufacturers on really determining some level of compatibility with real world rigging.

TS-112 is attempting to give manufacturers a test plan for seeing if an AAD or a particular installation (cutter top versus bottom etc) has any effect on PC launch in their container under a number of conditions. It's still under review and development.

Mirage Approved AAD List Current as of 20 April 2012 The following Automatic Activation Devices have been evaluated by Mirage Systems, Inc. to determine their operational compatibility with Mirage G3, G4.1 and RTS harness and container assemblies, and are APPROVED for installation: Brand Model Manufacturer Argus One Pin Aviacom, SA/NV Cypres 1, 2 One Pin (Student, Expert, Speed) Airtec, GmbH M2 One pin (Student, Expert) MarS a.s. Vigil I, II One Pin AAD nv/sa Advanced Aerospace Designs Mirage Systems, Inc. determines the operational compatibility of an AAD with our harness and container assemblies based upon the following criteria: The AAD will fit into the retaining pouch provided in the reserve container. The electrical cables are of sufficient length. The operating controls are accessible when installed. The closing loop cutter will fit into the elastic keeper provided. Approval IS NOT based upon the AADs operational reliability. For questions concerning the operational reliability of an AAD, contact the manufacturer. Install and use an AAD in Mirage harness and container assemblies at your own risk. Since the reserve closing loop of a Mirage harness and container assembly must pass through the pyrotechnic cutter assembly of an installed AAD, the potential exists for the cutter to fail to cut the closing loop and to trap it within the cutter mechanism. While the likelihood for such a failure may be remote, if it were to occur, it could possibly interfere with the immediate release of the reserve pilot chute, even if the ripcord is manually pulled. In addition, there is also the remote possibility that a partially cut closing loop could fail later, causing a dangerous premature deployment of the reserve parachute. Mirage owners should note that current designs of pyrotechnic cutters used in AADs do not include a "fail-safe" mechanism to guarantee that a faulty cutter cannot interfere with the manual operation of the reserve parachute in any way. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 105.43(c) states, “If installed, the automatic activation device must be maintained in accordance with manufacturer instructions for that automatic activation device.” Contact the manufacturer of your AAD if you have questions. Owners and users of Mirage Systems, Inc. products are encouraged to weigh the potential hazards of installing and using an AAD against the potential consequences of not having an AAD installed, and to make their own decision about using an AAD. For additional information, see Mirage Product Service Bulletin 06-11-2 dated 24 June 2011

As I understand it, the M2 failed this test at two very major US H/C manufacturers over a serious issue with their cutters and did not earn approval for use. The company now has to go re-engineer their cutters and try again. It may be a while before they are approved in the US for use in rigs by the manufacturers.

DOes anyone know what 2 manufacturers these were, and now other than Mirage, are there any other containers where it is approved for use?

So I was looking around and found the following information about the MARS M2:

The services life is 15 years or 15,000 jumps No servicing required (including apparently no battery changes) Cost--I found two suggested costs--699 Euros (~920 usd 90 Canadian, 885 Australian), I also found a 769 Euro price

Can't find anything about firing parameters, the link to the manual was no longer a valid link.

So I was looking around and found the following information about the MARS M2:

The services life is 15 years or 15,000 jumps No servicing required (including apparently no battery changes) Cost--I found two suggested costs--699 Euros (~920 usd 90 Canadian, 885 Australian), I also found a 769 Euro price

Can't find anything about firing parameters, the link to the manual was no longer a valid link.

I think that while there are no mandated battery changes, you still need to have the battery replaced when it runs down (the time varies according to the number of jumps). The unit warns you when this is required.

Does anybody know anything happening? In all of the release info from 2011 it appeared Alti-2 was going to be handling USA sales and importing, if I remember correctly. They have no reference and the Mars MS site states that it is going to be imported by M2 Distribution INC. I find corporate listings for that name in Boone, NC and Deland but can't find a corporate web page or any contact information.

Also, it is stated upthread that several manufacturers have approved installation but I can't find it on the Sunrise (Wings) site but haven't scoured all of them. Can somebody point me to any sort of approval?

Does anybody know anything happening? In all of the release info from 2011 it appeared Alti-2 was going to be handling USA sales and importing, if I remember correctly. They have no reference and the Mars MS site states that it is going to be imported by M2 Distribution INC. I find corporate listings for that name in Boone, NC and Deland but can't find a corporate web page or any contact information.

Also, it is stated upthread that several manufacturers have approved installation but I can't find it on the Sunrise (Wings) site but haven't scoured all of them. Can somebody point me to any sort of approval?